Drink-Driving News 2004

Young ‘Ignore Drink-Driving Laws’
YOUNG DRIVERS are ignoring drink-driving laws, adding to the rising number of road deaths, according to a survey by road safety charity BRAKE. More than a quarter of young motorists still at school or college admit to drinking some alcohol before driving, with 12% saying they had drunk three pints or more before driving on at least one occasion. 60% who admitted drinking more than five pints then driving were unlicensed. Provisional Department for Transport figures for 2003 indicate that 20 per cent of drivers aged 19 and under who died in crashes were over the drink-drive limit, compared with 11% in 1991. As in a similar survey from last year, these results have been presented in a somewhat disingenuous way. Many of those who admitted occasionally drinking some alcohol before driving will have only consumed one or two drinks, which is not illegal and causes no meaningful risk on the roads. Indeed many would regard this “staying low” as responsible behaviour. Most of the 12% who have driven after three or more pints will only have done it once and realised they have made an error of judgment. Of far more concern is that fact that most of those driving with seriously dangerous alcohol levels have no licence. Reading between the lines, this survey reinforces the message that an absence of honest, credible official information encourages people to take risks, and that the biggest deterrent is the fear of detection, something that is eroded when potential offenders see an ever-reducing police presence on the roads.

October 2004

Couple Not Guilty in Drunk Friend’s Crash
A DRINK-DRIVING case that divided France has ended with the acquittal of a couple accused of doing too little to prevent a crash in which a drunken cousin killed himself and four members of the same family. Angelique Fraisse, 29, and her husband, Jean-Sebastien, 31, could have been jailed for up to five years and fined more than Ł50,000 each if convicted. Debate has focused on the dilemma the couple faced when Frederic Colin, 29, insisted on driving home at 4am after a heavy night of drinking pastis, beer and white wine at a nearby café and then at the couple's home. They asked him to stay at their house, but Colin left anyway, drove the wrong way along a motorway and collided with another car carrying five members of the same family at Pont-a-Mousson in north-eastern France. Colin was found to be nearly five times over the drink-driving limit. The court accepted that, having tried to persuade him not to get into his car, the couple did all that could have been expected of them.
Given that Angelique Fraisse had herself been confined to a wheelchair at the age of 16 by an accident caused by a drunk driver, a guilty verdict in this case would have been exceptionally perverse. All the reports suggest that she and her husband had taken all reasonable steps to prevent Frederic Colin from driving. And a guilty verdict would have set an alarming precedent for anyone running a pub or bar. The responsibility for drink-driving offences should rest firmly on the individual themselves.

August 2004

New Technology Will Prevent Drink-Driving
NEW TECHNOLOGY to prevent drink drivers from using their cars has been put to the test by Road Safety Minister, David Jamieson. The alcohol ignition lock will be fitted into cars of convicted drink drivers as part of a research project across Birmingham and Bristol. If the 18-month pilot is a success new legislation could follow allowing the courts to use alcohol locks as part of their drink drive rehabilitation programmes. The device fits into the car's ignition and the driver must take a breath test to check blood alcohol levels - if they are too high then the car will not start. The technology also includes a random testing function, which monitors the driver en route to make sure they have not consumed alcohol since starting the car. Although there has been much press comment about this, in reality its application is likely to be limited to repeat offenders who have a strong incentive to “go straight” and get back on the road legally – perhaps those living in rural areas who need to drive to earn a living. As the vast majority of drivers never even come close to offending, it is not going to become a general fixture on cars. Of course, as the decimation of police traffic patrols means that it is easier than ever for unlicensed drivers to avoid detection, the simplest option for many convicted offenders will continue to be to drive illegally.

July 2004

Pub Table Stars in Drink-Drive Ad
THE GOVERNMENT has launched a new campaign against drink-driving, shortly after publishing figures showing deaths are rising again on Britain's roads. The theme of the campaign is that it takes less than you might think for your driving to be impaired by alcohol. Costing Ł1.4 million the TV, radio and cinema campaign is aimed primarily at 17-29 year olds and will run over the summer. The TV campaign will be aired again in the build up to the Christmas/New Year period. The ad was filmed entirely in a pub using state of the art editing. A car reaching speeds of between 10 and 20mph was used inside the pub to capture the accident's impact. A pub table was then transposed over the moving image to create a dramatic scene. Yet more publicity putting across a confusing and counter-productive message. What exactly are they trying to tell people? Surely focusing on the likelihood of being caught and the potential consequences is likely to be more effective.

June 2004

Drink-Driving ‘Out of Control’
A SENIOR Scottish police officer has warned that the drink-drive problems in his force area are “spiralling out of control”. Superintendent Peter Clark’s comments came after Grampian Police caught 21 drivers over the limit one weekend. The worst case was that of someone who was three-and-a-half times over the legal limit. Supt Clark said: “What is particularly worrying is that of the 21 drivers caught this weekend, 11 were young drivers aged between 19 and 25 years.” More evidence, if it were needed, that the lack of honest and meaningful information about the law and accident risk, combined with the replacement of traffic police by speed cameras, means that an increasing number of people are driving with dangerously high alcohol levels. This also gives the lie to the view – still apparently held by many police forces – that the typical offender is a middle-aged man visiting a country or edge-of-town pub.
Driver who Killed Children Gets 11 Years
A HIT-AND-RUN driver who was high on drink and drugs has been jailed for 11 years for killing a woman and two young children. Dean Martin, 23, had stolen his mother's car and was driving while banned at a speed of between 60 and 75mph when he hit two families walking home from a morning dance class. Ann Martin, 39 (no relation), her daughter Ashley, eight, and five-year-old Ross Sneddon died instantly after Martin lost control of the vehicle and mounted a pavement in a housing estate. The High Court in Edinburgh was told that Martin had been driving through the centre of Glenrothes, Fife, at “deadly and reckless” speeds, with the tyres on the car smoking and his passengers screaming at him to slow down. He failed to stop after the accident and abandoned the damaged car outside the home of one of his victims before fleeing on foot. His sister later handed him over to the police. Martin had been drinking lager and whisky with his mother on the night before the accident and had also taken ecstasy. Ross's father Andrew, 28, said the sentence was “a disgrace” and the justice system had let down his family. He added: “Is that what my son’s life amounted to, 11 years? Is that what the other lives amounted to?”
This is undoubtedly a very shocking case and the anguish of the families concerned is understandable. However, in any context, 11 years’ imprisonment is a very severe sentence, and it should be noted that the charge of culpable homicide (the Scottish equivalent of manslaughter) was used rather than the more usual “causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs”. Over the years, campaigners have succeeded in getting the maximum sentence for the latter offence progressively increased from 5 years to 10 and then 14 – which, in the very worst cases, may well be justified. One wonders how long it will be before some offender receives the full 14 years and it is still condemned as inadequate by relatives of the victim. In any case, the deterrent effect of such sentences is minimal as offenders never think it will happen to them.

May 2004

Random Breath Tests Rejected
THE HOME OFFICE is resisting pressure from the European Commission to bring in random breath tests for drivers. Under existing laws, UK police can only carry out a breath test if they believe the driver has been drinking. But the European Commission wants all member states to allow its police to carry out random tests. The Home Office said introducing random testing was “inefficient in catching drink-drive offenders” and would put pressure on the police. “The police are already quite adept at targeting drink-drive suspects and the government would like forces to continue to use intelligence-based methods to catch offenders,” a spokesman said.
Although, in theory, there are restrictions on the circumstances under which British police can administer breath tests, in practice the limiting factor on the number of tests is resources, not police powers. There are virtually no situations in which the present law realistically prevents police from testing someone if they want to. Random testing conjures up images of police roadblocks, which might be an effective way of harassing the law-abiding majority, but are likely, as the official stated, to be a singularly inefficient and wasteful means of catching offenders. In any case, the widespread use of mobile phones would mean that news of any checkpoint would rapidly get around.
Regardless of the merits of the proposal, it also raises the question of precisely why the European Commission should be entitled to interfere in the details of British road safety policy. This wasn't what the British people thought they were signing up to when they voted for the Common Market in 1975.

April 2004

Pubs to Offer Drinkers Breath Tests
BREATH TEST machines are to be installed in hundreds of pubs across Britain so that drinkers can check if they are over the drink-drive limit. From July, pub customers will be able to pay Ł1 to use the machines, called Know Your Limit, which will tell them whether they are “OK”, “high” or “unsafe to drive”. Drinkers blow through a straw into the coin-operated machine. The result appears on a screen and is confirmed by a computerised voice. The machines have been used in the US, but some sceptics in the British pub industry have warned that the devices could encourage people to “flirt with drink-driving”. Indeed, these devices could give drinkers a dangerously misleading message, as an individual’s alcohol level may continue to rise for up to an hour after his last drink. A more appropriate use for a personal breath test device would be to check an individual’s fitness to drive on the morning after, when the BAC will by definition be falling rather than rising.

March 2004

Roadside Charges on the Way
AS PART of the government’s National Alcohol Strategy, the Home Office has announced that it intends to bring in legislation to charge drink drivers at the roadside after a single positive breath test, without the need for a confirmatory test at a police station. Drivers could have their keys confiscated and be told to find their own way home.This represents a major erosion of suspects’ rights. Currently they have to take two breath tests at the police station, of which the lower is used as evidence. A single test will make unreliable convictions much more likely. And surely it is grossly irresponsible to leave vulnerable, possibly drunk, individuals isolated in the middle of nowhere with no guaranteed means of transport home, particularly if they are women.

January 2004

Top Cop Calls for Limit Cut
A LEADING police officer has called for the drink-drive limit to be reduced. North Wales Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, head of road policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the high number of drink-drivers arrested over the festive period means the limit should be cut from 80mg from 50mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood in an attempt to halt the trend, bringing the UK into line with most European countries. The licensed trade has opposed these calls, saying many experts believe such a cut would not stop hardcore offenders and could have a devastating effect on rural pubs. Brunstrom is a maverick extremist who has recently called for the legalisation of heroin while encouraging his force to carry out a draconian zero-tolerance campaign against speeding drivers and recording a historic low in burglary clear-ups. Many more sensible senior officers have no time for him, and therefore this call should not be given too much credence. The government have given the issue careful consideration and decided that a limit cut was not an option for the immediate future, a decision that many believe was guided by the views of senior traffic police.

Next News